Home Original page

Still no new license -- but draft text available

Grant Griffin g2 at seebelow.org
Fri Aug 18 17:59:44 EDT 2000 
Pat McCann wrote:

> Grant Griffin <g2 at seebelow.org> writes:
>
> > If that's a hint, I guess I'll have to just say that I've already got too many irons in
> > the fire.  So I mainly just try to "educate" the public a little when the opportunity
> > presents itself.  However, one small effort I've made in this way is the "Wide Open
> > License" (WOL), which you'll find at http://www.dspguru.com/wol.htm.
>
> Looks good.  I don't have time to read the whole page just now, but I
> will.  I'm suprised you didn't mention it before.

Well, as a Great Rabbit once said, "Ain't I a stinker?" ;-)

Actually, I've hawked it here before (sorry, Bugs!), but just not recently.

> Excellent name!  I wish I'd thought of that first.
>

Thanks!  ("Marketing, Benjamin--marketing".)

> Just curious: The license requires the license to appear in the source
> of derivatives.  Please explain why that doesn't make it apply to the
> derivative. (Say I just changed some code.) If the WOL and my
> closed-source licenses both appear in the source, which takes
> precedence?  How does anyone know which license applies to what code?  I
> have some (unsatisfying) answers, but am curious to hear yours.  (I
> don't recall you answering a similar question about Python a couple
> weeks ago. Sorry if you did.)

Darn you lawyers... ;-)

In all honesty, I hadn't thought of that aspect of it.  (This license text has been kicking
around for years; I didn't write it and I don't know who did.)   I guess as a practical matter,
if one makes improvements to WOL software that one wants to be "Wide Open" there's no problem:
just use the license as-is.  But if you want to _restrict_ those improvements in some way,
probably the best thing to do would be just to keep them closed.  (That doesn't cover the case
of some rogue employee madly opening your closed software, but then again, nothing's perfect.)

Alternatively, I suppose a sentence could be added to the effect that "users are free to create
licenses whose terms superceed these".  <cool--even more freedom!>  However, then we get in to
the problem somebody pointed out here awhile back that plugging one hole in the legal dyke tends
to open up at least two more.

(if-lawyers-were-paid-like-HMOs-we-wouldn't-have-this-problem-<wink>)-ly y'rs,

=g2
--
_____________________________________________________________________

Grant R. Griffin                                       g2 at dspguru.com
Publisher of dspGuru                           http://www.dspguru.com
Iowegian International Corporation       http://www.iowegian.com
More information about the Python-list mailing list